“Pop selectively waits for something to explode on country and then benefits from the all the exposure and relevance that the country format has built for it (Taylor Swift, for example).”

This was the way legacy country radio station 96.3 KSCS in Dallas attempted to explain to its listeners why they had decided to add music from pop stars like Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran, and even the recent collaboration between Rihanna, Kanye West, and Paul McCartney to their rotation. KSCS and some other country radio stations have begun to add pop songs to playlists to presumably deal with the deterioration of Bro-Country and a significant ratings slide with country’s key demographic.

“If the audience that loves Taylor is forced to go to pop exclusively to find her, we’re hurting our chance of growing our radio station,” the KSCS missive continued. “So the real question is, ‘Why can’t it happen in reverse?'”

The fact that KSCS even felt the need to converse with its listening public about the matter signals that some, if not many of the station’s listenership takes issue with the decision, and that they’re willing to stand by it as more than just an experiment. Listeners taking issue with it was certainly what happened after the message was posted on Facebook. “Y’all are going to lose the real country music fans by changing your format! I’ve listened to KSCS for 25 yrs and have started turning my radio to the Wolfe to actually hear country,” the most overwhelmingly popular comment on the thread reads.

But what about the fundamental point that KSCS made. Does it make any sense? Is country radio designed unfairly so that country artists can use it as a stepping stone to pop while the country radio stations themselves have to stay in one place, losing listeners to the pop stations?

Top 40 pop radio has always been about taking the biggest songs from the respective genres and featuring them in one place. That’s pop radio’s job; that’s its niche in the marketplace. Now country is showing the early signs of coveting that position for itself.

Mainstream country radio stretched its belly with Bro-Country, and now that it’s in serious decline, it’s looking for the next fix to filly its over-portioned appetite. For years country labels and artists tested the boundaries of how far in the pop direction they could go before listeners, radio program directors, and even other artists began to push back. But this is an entirely new paradigm we’re experiencing in the pop/country interface. Instead of making a version of pop for itself, country is borrowing the music and artists from the pop world under no pretenses.

Remember what the big narrative was with country radio last spring? It was how the country radio format was going to split, and segregate current mainstream pop country and a slightly older country with legacy artists in two separate formats. Though the idea and the execution may have come across as less than ideal to many, it was progress. Older artists were going to find a way back onto radio. But this new development of pop encroaching on the country radio space might be the format split in reverse. It is the exacerbation of the problems that led to discussions of splitting the country format in the first place.

Radio may be where this new pop paradigm for country music starts, but it certainly is not where it ends. That KSCS philosophy extrapolated above? It’s the same one that’s apparently been adopted by country music’s two major award shows, the CMA’s and the ACM’s. In November, the CMA decided to not just let the pop genre exclusively serve Ariana Grande and Meghan Trainor to the public, and booked them as performers on the awards show. Similarly the upcoming ACM’s have just announced appearances by pop artists Christina Aguilera and Nick Jonas of The Jonas Brothers. And how many times are these pop replacements women? It’s because country can’t field enough females in house to come even close to sharing equal time in the presentation.

And that’s not all. Announced on Monday, March 30th, Scott Borchetta’s Big Machine Label Group has signed 19-year-old Disney actress turned pop star Laura Marano. Yes, some of Big Machine’s artists have gone pop or played pop, but here’s an unapologetically pop performer with no pretenses now working under the auspices of one of country’s most powerful labels.

The explanation we hear often about young music listeners is they don’t play favorites with genres, they listen to everything. Is this a case of open-mindedness, or an unhealthy blending of heritage and influences that is causing the bleeding out of diversity from culture in widespread cultural homogenization? And is this the actual behavior pattern of young listeners, or are music institutions actually the ones causing this “all genre” listening behavior by seeking out the most popular songs and artists regardless of format to feature?

Different genres of music tickle different parts of the brain. There’s nothing wrong with listening to different genres of music, or even mixing genres of it’s done right. But variety is what allows music to remain vibrant.

Would Taylor Swift have made it as a superstar if she had started in pop? Or with a weak voice and in a crowded field, would she just have been yet another 15-year-old vying for the public’s attention? Is it unfair that Taylor Swift used country music as a stepping stone? And if so, isn’t it just as unfair for country to use Taylor Swift as a stepping stone towards pop?

64 Comments

Bear
March 31, 2015 @
10:09 am

I repeat my cliche again. Most maianstreamn popular “country” acts make pop for the simply reason it has a bigger audience. They call country or market it as country because the male act are afraid to actually compete in the female dominated pop genre proper, where they would most likely lose that fight. So this new format allows for them to still be “top tier” acts while being squarely and firmly played alongside pop female giants like Taylor Swift and Katy Perry without actually having to compete with them or the other male pop acts either, for that matter.

In Nashville, Cumulus owns 2 FM country stations: WKDF and WSM. Last year, they made WSM-FM a Nash Icons station, and WKDF remained t40 country. This has resulted in strong ratings for both stations, and it’s pushed the Clear Channel/iheart station WSIX into 3rd place among the 3 country stations when it used to lead.

So in Dallas, Cumulus owns 2 FM country stations, KPLX and KSCS and in order to differentiate, they have KSCS replace Country Gold titles with pop titles? Why not convert one of them to Nash Icons? Is it because their main competition (like 95.9 The Ranch) locally plays countrier music (or music that can legitimately be called country)? Is it because there is a Clear Channel country station to kill in the market? Because if the FB comments are any indication, KSCS’s move is going over like a lead balloon. It’ll be interesting to see if the ratings suffer though.

If what’s on their website is any indication, Windmills, they’re already pretty close to that; they claim to play everything from the ’90s up to the present day. They just don’t market themselves as “Nash Icons.” How much that differentiates them from Nash Icons I don’t know, but there you go.

But what about the fundamental point that KSCS made. Does it make any sense? Is country radio designed unfairly so that country artists can use it as a stepping stone to pop while the country radio stations themselves have to stay in one place, losing listeners to the pop stations?

Well, here was my take on that, as I put it on this FB post on their page:

“If the audience that loves Taylor is forced to go to pop exclusively to find her, we”™re hurting our chance of growing our radio station.”

Weeeeell, here’s a crazy thought: Maybe you shouldn’t have been catering to Taylor Swift’s audience in the first place, or at least catered to it less and less as she went more pop. I would venture to say that most Taylor Swift fans aren’t so much fans of country music as they are fans of Taylor Swift, i.e., “I don’t like country music but I like Taylor Swift.” I mean, like it or not, genres and radio formats are still a thing to a lot of people for perfectly legitimate reasons, and frankly, if you’re going to call your radio station a “country” station as you give airtime to the likes of Ed Sheeran and Kanye West instead of Sturgill Simpson and Aaron Watson, then you deserve to freeze in the dark with the buggy whip makers.

Surely it”™s not as if any of that underground music would drive people away. KSCS never went as deep as 95.9 the Ranch or even 99.5 the Wolf when it came to the Texas music as that scene was on the rise back in the day, but I remember when they”™d play folks like Pat Green and Robert Earl Keen every so often along with the classic country. (The old stuff was their thing, while 99.5 was more about the Texas music.) I really don”™t know what would have changed, except for the demographic Cumulus is targeting with it.

Speaking of Cumulus, they own both KSCS and KPLX now. Which might explain the whole thing, I suppose, in that they want to differentiate one station from the other, but why not do it with actual country music that”™s being left on the table as it is, as opposed to playing pop hits that everyone else is playing? Another friend of mine said it best:

“It blows my mind that there are actual executives in 2015 that are this dumb and short-sighted. In the digital age, this one-size-fits-all crap doesn”™t fly in ANY market. It”™s a niche world. If someone really wants to listen to Taylor or any other pop music, they don”™t need you for that. They”™re going to be able to do it on their own.

“The best thing you can do is find your own distinct and unique sound and then continue to build that brand with repetition and consistency. Spoiler alert: if you”™re known as a country station, your best chance to succeed there is probably with country music and not trying to take well-established brands from elsewhere and somehow incorporate into some all-encompassing hybrid nonsense.

“Of course, all of that requires actual forward-thinking, and we know Corporate Country would rather chase the tails of whimsical teenyboppers. So”¦ yeah.”

We used to have two country stations where I live, one was pure bros all the time, couldn’t even get the Judds. The other one at least tried to cater to the real country fans. (admittedly shortly before I abandoned radio altogether I heard “This is how we roll” on my morning commute three days consecutive (same time commute too) but had to call to hear Hank Thompson. That second station collapsed and is now an easy-listening-adult-contemporary station that doesn’t play anything I’ve ever heard, and the other one, which previously had abandoned us real country fans, swung back the other way and picked up some classic Dierks, some Musgraves, and some of the later nineties material. I actually don’t listen by choice anymore, and I’ve mandated that my roommates and carpoolers listen to any station other than the country station, but every now and then o a job-site I hear the state of country radio. I can’t help but think that since country radio abandoned us, we should abandon country radio, just leave them to sleep in the bed that they made, and even when they beg us country fans to come back, we tell them we’re too busy with our new friend the CD player.

Eric, do you think Taylor will continue to record music as her primary career path in the long term?

I’m thinking that the explicit shift to pop makes more sense if she were to take a different path. For example, if she were to pursue an acting career in Hollywood, pop music would be better aligned with the stakeholders there than country music. Or if she were interested in going into politics, crossing over into pop would expand her base.

While her music has never been my cup of tea, it is quite clear to me that the quality of the music has gotten worse after the pop crossover.

Movies, maybe. She has always expressed a strong interest in a career as an actress.

On the other hand, I strongly doubt that she has any desires of being a politician. For one, she has never expressed any clear political views. Secondly, she seems to have a controversy-averse personality.

Eric, I have a different perspective. I think she’s actually much better at politics, defined broadly, than she is at music. She is not a good singer. But she is very good at public relations. She is able to build a huge fan base of people who think they have an emotional connection with her. The fans believe that she has empathy, sort of in the “I feel your pain”, Bill Clinton kind of way. And she seems to have been very careful to avoid any situation that an adversary could potentially turn into a scandal. Usually celebrities who have no ambitions beyond being successful pop singers aren’t that careful. She has played identity politics more effectively than anyone else, elected or not.

Her shift to pop music doesn’t make sense musically, but make a lot of sense politically. Her “base” as a Nashville-based singer, while huge, was nowhere close to a majority. New York is a much bigger scene, with a much brighter spotlight, than Nashville.

Some people are just naturally conflict-averse. There is no way to predict someone’s goal in life from his or her personality type.

In any case, Taylor has never expressed any interest in public policy. She is one of the least politically outspoken of any major celebrity. Given that, I find it very hard to believe that she has any desire of pursuing a political career.

Eric, most politicians are go along, get along types. They seek popularity, not conflict. Sometimes they think they have to take controversial positions in order to win primaries in either party. But I think the majority of them are conflict averse.

Interestingly the “Public Image” section of Taylor’s Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift) claims that she was described as “the Best People Person since Bill Clinton”. I’m not predicting that she would have a formal career in politics, but I think her current role is more about public relations than music.

Taylor Swift is actually the reason I found out about the country genre. I am British, and at the time never heard a real “country” song, assuming it was all to do with cowboys and the wild west. Even though it surprises me now, Taylor is the reason that my young self (when I was roughly 10 years old) was drawn to pop-country music, and subsequently more traditional styles of country. Even though the numbers may not be astronomical, Taylor did bring fans (including myself) to the country genre

I get what you’re saying Eric, I do, but Miley and Taylor both are/were young girls, singing simple songs aimed at young girls, about their life experiences, and about their little worlds. Normally country music doesn’t have entertainers like that, but pop does, so when Swift began in country, she brought with it that teenybopper mold and stereotype, which then jumped from her to Country music as a whole. At least in the minds of some people, anyway.

In Austin, about 5years ago, we had a big change in country radio when I believe Clear Channel bought most of the stations or owned them already and changed the format. Don’t quote me on the company, but it was a big station that came in and changed things up across the board.

We had KVET And Kase 101. KVET had always played more of the traditional type of country and was the only station in Austin to start playing Local Artist and Texas Country. Kase 101 was always known for the new country and top 10 stuff. This was fine, it gave listeners options. KVET even had a Sat. Country Gold show from 6-10am and on Sat from 8pm-2am, it was all Texas Country. During the reformat and afterwards, there was quite a bit of turn around at KVET and some long time DJ’s left or had no choice but to leave and Clear Channel change the format to more of the newer top 10 country crap.

One night while searching for a Radio Station, I happened upon a new station that was playing Dale Watson -“Country My Ass” and kept replaying the song over and over, I thought it was odd but l kept listening cause the song was awesome. Low and behold, KOKE FM was back. Ray Benson and Bob Cole (long time KVET DJ) started their own station and brought back KOKE FM. It has become one of the most listen to Radio Stations in Austin and the great part about KOKE FM, they are not owned by any big name company and they have their own format. Sat Country Gold is back and the Sunday Gospel show is back. They have artist come in every day to interview and play live songs. To see KOKE FM have so much success, so fast and in such a tough radio market, shows what people want and the big companies can’t ignore this for long. I’m seeing it happen more and more

KSCS is full of it. They’re playing these other artists because they’re slowly transitioning out of the country music format for the station. Cumulus is having this station ‘test the waters’ to appease investors in Cumulus and the station. If the audience responds well to the changing/hybrid format (meaning, bringing in more listeners to the station) you’ll find that, one day, KSCS won’t be playing any country music at all. This goes for all country radio stations experimenting like this, no matter who owns them.

I won’t speak for anybody else, but in my case it isn’t so much caring about country radio per se; rather, it’s about concern for the country genre and for true country artists having a good platform from which to reach the listening public.

Myself, I’m thinking (and this may be the point you’re making) that we have to give up radio (whether it calls itself “country” or something else) for dead and seek other avenues. It’s tough when I see what radio does for people who produce nothing but crap and can’t stop myself from thinking what it could do for people of talent.

Then too there’s a certain amount of nostalgia involved. I’m old enough to remember when you could rely on radio to find good music, and I’d certainly like to be able to turn on the radio and hear greats like Johnny Cash or wonderful up-and-comers like Karen Jonas. Alas hope fades of that ever happening and I think I’ll just have to find the music on my own.

I guess that comment came off a little prickish, it wasn’t my intent. What I should have said was that I abandoned traditional country radio clean back in the 90s when I believe it turned pop. I am not overly familiar with newer artists because I don’t listen to the genre. Instead, the classic country channels, Sirius radio’s outlaw country, and the underground scene. I guess I owe that much to pop country. If traditional country radio wouldn’t have became so unlistenable, I never would have had to seek a new format, and would have missed out on Jason Boland, Corb Lund, Charlie Robison, Billy Joe Shaver, and a dozen more artists country radio would not even consider.

The country genre is acting like the protagonist in “You Belong With Me” – the insecure girl sitting in the bleachers who is envious of the popular cheer captain. But in this case I don’t think the girl in the bleachers will end up getting the boy.

The girl in the bleachers was able to win over the boy by ultimately taking pride in her own personality rather than trying to imitate the cheer captain. She realized that it was a waste of time to attempt to out-perform the cheer captain at her own game.

Up here in Vancouver , our local ‘ country ‘ station seems to be bowing ‘slightly’ to listener feedback . As bad as their playlist had gotten with the pseudo-country music they were playing , something had to give ….and it appears it has. The other day they announced to listeners that they were going to feature MORE older country music more regularly including a weekly ‘Throwback Thursday’ where they would play everything listeners were phoning in to hear from years past . Granted , the station’s definition of ‘years past’ may ultimately mean 2010 . However , I heard some things which were encouraging in terms of their new intentions ..(.Randy Travis, Diamond Rio etc..)
Perhaps they are just throwing a bone to few more vocal listeners ? Perhaps they see how shitty their playlist has become ? Perhaps , like so many , they don’t know which way’s up anymore and have , themselves , become ‘strawgraspers ‘.? Dunno . Stay tuned .

“If the audience that loves Taylor is forced to go to pop exclusively to find her, we”™re hurting our chance of growing our radio station.”

Wrong, wrong, WRONG! For the most part Taylor moved over to pop long ago. They remixed her music for pop radio starting with her second single in 2007. So most of her fans came from pop radio. Taylor leaving country radio didn”™t cause the ratings drop there. Overplaying bro-country and other pure pop and underplaying any kind of great country music, especially female country artists, caused it. Because Taylor”™s been on pop radio since 2007 and pop lost more listeners than country in 2014:

So listeners didn”™t follow her to pop radio, they were already there. And what Taylor fan hasn”™t bought her music and needs to hear it on radio? Not too many I imagine.

You, country radio, are hurting your chance of growing by playing bro-country and other pure pop, failing to keep playing and grow the best country artists and forcing loyal country fans to go elsewhere to hear country music. About 2 years ago I started changing the station every time I heard a bro-country song and the music changed so much (too much generic pop) it quickly got to the point where I had to stop listening to all country stations. Maybe you stubborn radio know-it-alls still don’t want to start listening to very loyal country radio listeners. Fine, we’ll keep listening to Pandora, Spotify, other places that play more country even though we’d rather listen to radio but can’t because of what you play. Next enjoy losing your bandwagon pop and rock fans who aren’t loyal like country fans.

I will give you this. Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran, Rihanna, Kanye West, Paul McCartney, and other real pop and R&B artists are better than bro-country pop. But like most country fans I don’t want to hear any of it on country radio where I expect to hear the best country, not pop and R&B wannabees or country boys “influenced” by pop, R&B, rap, and EDM instead of country.

“Pop selectively waits for something to explode on country and then benefits from the all the exposure and relevance that the country format has built for it (Taylor Swift, for example).”

How often does a Taylor Swift explode? Will there ever be another Taylor, writing songs that millions of teen girls relate to and buy, propelled by a big startup label starting with just one artist to promote, starting out with a great country/pop album then going pure pop? Highly unlikely, at least not for many years and probably decades. So stop dreaming about the next Taylor and trying to fill her shoes and start playing more of the best, most critically acclaimed current country artists/music (Kellie Pickler, Kacey Musgraves, Ashley Monroe, Sturgill Simpson, and more) who fill THEIR (country music legends) shoes.

Stop overplaying every new sound-alike male to come out with generic cookie-cutter bro-country and other pure pop and play more of the best female country artists. It’s terrible that several of the best, most critically acclaimed country artists don’t have any radio #1s between them because country radio won’t allow more than 3 solo female country artists to reach or stay at #1 and shuts most out of the top 20. While many new solo males like Brett Eldredge, Thomas Rhett, Cole Swindell, and Tyler Farr to name a few, already have 3 #1s or top 10s each, even though they’ve sold less music than Pickler and Musgraves. Simpson’s album has also sold more than some male albums with singles radio played to #1.

“Two stations playing the same music doesn’t benefit anyone really.”

Then why are you playing the same music other pop stations are playing?

I don’t want to hear much classic country on the radio either, I want to hear the best NEW and RECENT country and it’s not bro-country or other pure pop.

Why do people feel the need to distinguish between pop and country, or between any genres for that matter? Music is music, and there is good and bad in all genres depending on an individual’s tastes. As for country music, it clearly needs to evolve by moving into the 21st century. Yet some “traditional” country fans want to the music to remain stuck in the past. While I’m not a fan of bro-country or much of what’s played on country radio, I can’t stand traditional artists that don’t bring any new ideas, or at least their own thing, to the table. I won’t name any names, but I’m sure we can all think of certain stuck-in-the-past country artists whose music is trumpeted as being “real country.” To me, those artists are boring. if I want to hear someone that sounds like George Jones or Hank Williams, I’ll listen to George Jones or Merle Haggard. I don’t need a modern artist that’s aping their sound.

This is 2015, not 1965 or 1955. When it’s good, pop music can be very good, And when it’s bad, it can be very bad. Just like country. As a roots music fan, I like to hear new artists that have their own sound and push the music forward. Why be stuck in the “good ol’ days,” when we’re all alive right now?

For me, it’s not about the sound/music as much as the lyrical content. That’s what’s missing in country these days. The music is so shallow. It used to be that you’d listen to rock or pop if you wanted the wild weekend, and you’d listen to country if you want to hear songs about real life. It’s not that way anymore in mainstream country. Now, everyone’s drinking and trying to pick up girls.

You can bring new things to the music and still make it mean something.

With all due respect…why not? Because even you know this is a bullshit argument that only works if you talk in vague generalities? I would like to hear names of whom you think are “traditional artists that don”™t bring any new ideas, or at least their own thing, to the table.” We’re not afraid to call the Music Row murderers out by name. Let’s see it done from the other side.

Honestly, that doesn’t seem fair to me to use Watson as an example, because it’s always seemed to me that the way you described him is exactly what he”™s positioned himself as. Everything about him, for lack of a better term, has screamed “throwback” from the first time I saw and heard him. Personally I do like his music even if it”™s that way, and I realize this may smack of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, but to hold Dale Watson up as the type of “evolution” that traditionalists as a whole want seems to be a bit self-serving. What about all the Texas and red dirt artists championed constantly here (more so in the comments, probably, through I know Trigger has given them good coverage), like Jason Boland and the Turnpike Troubadours? They”™re about the furthest thing from this bullshit at KSCS that you can imagine, but they do bring their own ideas to the table.

“Why do people feel the need to distinguish between pop and country, or between any genres for that matter?”

The same reasons why pop radio doesn’t play country music and the Grammys have different genres, many people like genres and certain kinds of lyrics and sounds. Does anyone here only want to listen to rap or jazz? If everything sounded the same, bro-country for example, how boring would that be? If all country music were reduced to pop or rap, how bad would that be? Terrible for most country fans. Great country music is better than pop and rap. Real music played by real musicians vs. synthesizers. Real stories vs. abstract.

I’d be surprised if there are any or many “traditional” country fans who want the music to remain stuck in the past here. But country should evolve without losing its roots and turning into lesser, more generic forms of other already more generic genres like pop and rap, and everyone trying to copy FGL.

I disagree that great country music better than pop. Plenty of great pop music has been made as well. Ever hear of The Beatles? A great pop record can not only be catchy, but also inventive. A few days ago I heard a radio interview that Bob Edwards conducted with the noted session musician, Carol Kaye. She started out as a jazz musician, but wound up playing guitar, and especially bass, on thousands of pop recordings. She was particularly prominent in the ’60s, when she played on records by Phil Spector, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, the Animals, the Beach Boys, Motown artists, Ike & Tina Turner, and countless others. During the interview she talked about the creativity that went into making those records, and certainly didn’t feel it was beneath her because of her jazz background. It’s one of the most fascinating musician interviews I’ve ever heard, and be found at the NPR site if anyone wants to give a listen. Country-rooted guitarists like Glen Campbell and James Burton lent their creativity to thousands of pop sessions as well. And they weren’t just going through the motions.

On another forum, I recently defended country musicians to someone who claimed country music was “simple and not very challenging” when compared to more “advanced” forms of music like prog-rock and heavy metal. It was my contention that this person’s assertion was not true. Musical skill is not the domain of some genres and not others. There are plenty of creative musicians throughout the entire musical landscape, both then and now. As for pop music, it’s as hard to make a “good” pop record as anything in music. The best stuff stands the test of time. and the best pop stuff has done that as much as the best country stuff has.

No. Certain types of music are objectively better than other types of music. Traditional bluegrass played by skilled musicians is better than a guy with a laptop layering shitty beats over each other and calling it music. Mozart played by the New York Philharmonic is a higher form of music than bluegrass. A dirty rhyme is a lower form of poetry than Virgil. Traditional French cuisine prepared by a master chef is superior to Burger King. A landscape painted by Claude Lorrain is a superior work of art to a crucifix in a jar of urine, passed of as art by an anti-Christian progressive.

There are two ways to judge art: difficulty in making it, and enjoyment derived by the audience. The examples you cited all fall in the category of difficulty level. Nonetheless, I am sure most people on SCM would consider bluegrass to be “better” than Mozart simply due to personal taste.

You’re ignoring the genius in the composition of the art. Mozart could compose a movement that was never performed or Shakespeare could write a play that was never performed. The skill would be in the performance of the art by the actors or musicians, but the composition is the real art.

The enjoyment is irrelevant. A great painting could be locked away (many are) never to be seen by the public, but that does not make it any less great. Great compositions or plays can go unperformed. It does not effect their genius. The more accessible a work of art is to the general public, the lower it is. It has to be. The wider your audience, the more you have to simplify and use base themes.

That’s what I meant when I talked about “difficulty level”. Nonetheless, even compositional genius is ultimately a multidimensional quantity.

Composition and production of music requires multiple skills, including melodic sense, rhythmic sense, and skill in instrumental arrangements. And in songs, this is only half of the game, with the other half consisting of lyrical skills.

And then there is the question of the standards by which the artwork is being judged. There are ultimately three ways in which music affects listeners: technical (through symmetric arrangements, technical lyrics, etc.), emotional (through moody melodies, ballad lyrics, etc.), or bodily (through dance music, etc.). 18th Century Classical music serves as a prime example of the technical type, whereas 19th Century music exemplifies the emotional type. Even within these broad types, there are multiple different types of sonic and lyrical styles possible, which explains why we have genres to begin with.

The point is that an artist may be great at certain styles and musical components and not-so-great at others and that objective determination of musical talent is generally futile.

I’m talking about modern music made during the past say 1-20 years, after all this article is about what big mainstream country radio plays. The quality of pop has gone downhill since The Beatles made music plus they were more rock than today’s synthesized pop, for example Maroon 5 – Sugar, the current #1 pop radio song, and the bro-country and other pure pop played on country radio (why must it be synthesized? Even some songs pop radio plays aren’t nearly as synthesized).

Since The Beatles played guitars and other instruments, not synthesizers, they help make my point. Every Beatles song is better and more country than every bro-country song and they have songs people consider to be country and country-inspired:

Even The Beatles are too pop for many people and many prefer the more rocking Rolling Stones, The Who, etc. That’s like country/pop vs. country/rock.

Sure there’s great new pop out there but I strongly prefer guitar, fiddle, banjo, steel, mandolin, dobro, harmonica, piano and other country instruments over synthesized music and no synthesizer can come close to duplicating those sounds. It’s always disappointing when any country artist replaces instruments with synth. Just using synth or too much of it can also make all the music sound about the same. Until recently, country was the only genre left where every new song on the radio was real music played by real musicians with no or sometimes very little synthesized pop. After bro-country started, pop and classic rock radio playlists are better than country radio. There’s good and bad synthesized music and bro-country synth sounds bad, generic, and cheap DIY. For example compare this to Taylor’s new music:

Also I don’t want to hear pop style lyrics on country radio. I’m sure many teens and some adults love all that but many don’t and what about the rest of us? No AM, FM or XM country station plays enough of the best new and recent country. The streaming services are the only places that do. Try requesting the best country from FM and unless it’s something they already play they will ignore you, lie, or tell the truth that they aren’t allowed to play it because their central corporate bosses say so. If country radio listened to this guy maybe they’d play better music:

Disagree about the Beatles. I consider them to be one of the most overrated groups of all time. 70s pop, such as Elton John, was far more interesting lyrically. In terms of sonic style, nothing can beat the instrumental diversity and high choruses of the 80s.

It’s also important to note that many bro-country songs largely feature electric guitar and very little synthesizer. Electric guitar has largely served as a negative influence in country music, making it louder and less finely melodic.

I don’t see what all the fuss is about. So what Kanye West isn’t Country… Most of what is being played on “New Country” isn’t Country anyway. Hasn’t been for some time. Sam Hunt “Take Your Time” IS Country?? “Burnin’ It Down”?, “Make Me Wanna”?…. “Something Bad”? Of course none of that is country. The only difference is those songs are marketed to listeners as Country. Kanye West’s track is no more out of place musically than Sam Hunt, and pop country listeners LOVE that!

If “New Country” were true to it’s name you’d be hearing Sturgill Simpson, Elizabeth Cook, Holly Williams, Jason Isbell and dozens more artists producing (excellent) actual Country Music, not EDM pop crap from Taylor Swift and Ellie Goulding. But as long as talented true Country artists are ignored by Nashville and radio programmers, the void will be filled by Kanye West and Ed Sheeran,

When the “Bro” movement began some years ago, traditionalists like me complained, and everybody said.. “music has to evolve… suck it up”. Well if Country Music must evolve so must Country Radio, like it or not ”“ suck it up! And since bro-Country is (thankfully) dying, this is the result. You wanted evolution, and you got it. I have faith that both modern Country music and Country radio will improve, but sadly sometimes to build something you must destroy something else. I think that’s all J.R.Â Schumann is trying to do.

I have heard a couple of people claim that the current Rihanna / Kanye / McCartney collaboration is a country song, or country-influenced in some way. Anyone else heard this? I find it baffling.

Actually, right now there’s an article on the website Buzzfeed praising Rihanna for “saving country music” with her current single, a task which was necessary because apparently country music is “the most problematic genre, like ever,” according to the writer. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess this particular article was written by a 22-year old intern whose only point of reference with regard to country music is having a handful of Taylor Swift songs on a playlist on her iPhone. After all, Swift is the biggest “country” star that an entire generation of kids is familiar with, and I guess in their minds “country” equals acoustic pop.

And no, I don’t typically go to Buzzfeed for trenchant musical commentary. The only reason I know of this this article is because it is currently the second result which pops up when you type “Saving Country Music” into Google. Annoying.

I do like Taylor, Carrie Underwood( who has a lot of pop country with little traditional) and Miranda who does have some non traditional music as well. I do think its sad how very talented country artists get the shaft because they are traditional. You would not believe( or maybe you would) the chain reaction Holly Williams had within family. It started with me playing The Highway for my mom when I had to take her somewhere.
They could put these country artists in mainstream. If they would give them great promotion they could do well in mainstream while doing the music they love. I really enjoy Carrie and Miranda in country genre. Rachel Brooke, Lindi Ortega, Valerie June, Carolina Chocolate Drops, Old Crow Medicine Show, Della Mae, Holly Williams, Trampled By Turtles, Tami Neilson, Sarah Jarosz, Sturgill Simpson, Chris Knight ect would show diverse music that country offers. They would show such great talent in singing and writing.

I wish pop radio plays all Taylor Swift’s country songs like Mean. Country music don’t seem to care about Taylor Swift because Taylor Swift only appeals pop tastes, not country tastes. That and Carrie Underwood songs like Something In The Water and Tim McGraw’s Highway Don’t Care. Country music is not popular nowadays even with mainstream country like Florida Georgia Line because popular music including the Internet don’t care about country. Also, the only country music that was big in popular music is country singers making pop music and crossover. That’s it. Other country music like Brad Paisley did not. See what I mean?

I know in the scheme of things it doesn’t really mean anything, but Ive been following the FB postings of listeners of KCSC… and they are not happy about the addition of Pop selections on the station. They are even turning their nose up at Sam Hunt, who I thought had been given a hall pass on Country radio. It surely is a very small sampling, but nearly all the comments are negative. The sad thing is, they say “We want REAL Country… FGL… Luke.. Jason…Cole”, which I find sad… and a bit amusing, but still maybe a step in the right direction? Anyone?

And some of the facebook replies from KSCS are ridiculous. It’s the same type of ignorant comments I’ve seen from other FM stations more concerned with pushing their going pop agendas than playing the best country music to keep loyal country music fans listening. There is no explaining away country radio selling out to pop and not playing only great country music, whether they play 1, 3 or 10 pop songs a week.

Here’s a ridiculous comment from KSCS:

“Two stations playing the same music doesn”™t benefit anyone really.”

Then why are you playing the same music other pop stations are playing?

Another I saw when this story broke but I don’t see it now so maybe they deleted it?:

“Kanye West”™s track is no more out of place musically than Sam Hunt, and pop country listeners LOVE that!”

And this one:

“I think the Rihanna/Kanye song is a considered a stretch because of who is singing it, not really because of the content of the song. It’s a great vocal over an acoustic guitar with a great hook. That was why we decided to play it. This song has played 3 times, this week.”

They are wrong in saying pop country listeners LOVE Kanye West”™s track and the problem IS the content of the songs. Great vocals? Kanye can’t sing and the vocals and lyrics on FourFiveSeconds are terrible: “wildin’, talkin’ trash, ’bout to spaz.” Real country! LOL This listener who loves all kinds of good country including pop country hates hearing other genres on country radio! If I wanted to hear pure pop or R&B I’d listen to those stations, not “country” radio. Nothing makes me stop listening faster than bro-country and other genres.

No more out of place musically than Sam Hunt? LOL Sign me up as a regular listener forever! If pure pop Sam Hunt is the new standard for country radio that is terrible! Put him on pop radio where he belongs and replace him with the best country. People who love Hunt are pure pop/R&B fans. Sure many pop fans listening to country radio love him, mostly the girls who think he looks hot, and many people will listen to anything radio plays. But more people love and want to hear great country artists and songs country radio isn’t playing or isn’t playing enough instead of Hunt, West, Sheeran, most bro-country, pure pop, etc.

“That’s precisely the point – if you find yourself switching over to the other station, even one less time a week for a pop song, that’s our goal.”

If I switch away from a country station it’s because they play other genres. Maybe the programmers are so busy looking at short-term portable people meter station changing they fail to see many loyal listeners like me leaving country radio for good or until they play better country music again if they ever do. They can’t see the forest for the trees.

Why not give some of the best indie country artists a break and play them a few times a week instead of big label acts in other genres? Surely no country fan wants to hear great new country music.